MTSSR_questions_final.pdf

Impact Evaluation of Training in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Reading in Early Elementary School

Responses to Questions on the Solicitation

Budget

• The instruction to offerors the offerors to cost out $25,000 per school per year for the training provider in the budget. In addition, the PWS states that in addition to the training provider costs the contractor should also include coaching coasts and costs of teachers participating in the training events in their budget (e.g., not included in the above $25,000 per school budget)? Is this correct?

Response: That is correct. Offerors should budget $25,000 per implementation year per school for the training provider activities. In addition, the contractor should budget for school staff time in training events and for any implementation activities that occur outside staff contract time.

• As is clearly stated in the PWS, the training provider and their specific model of providing training and supports for MTSS-R implementation is selected through competition; hence the coaching dosage or the number of teachers required to participate in different training events cannot be determined beforehand. Can you provide guidelines regarding the average expected level of coaching dosage, the average number of teachers and the average number of training days for budgeting purpose?

Response: The RFP states (page 42) that the training may involve (1) support to school leadership and staff in order to establish the infrastructure necessary for MTSS-R implementation including establishing a school team and identifying staff for essential roles, introducing a student screening and progress monitoring system, and developing a schedule for the school day (readiness activities), (2) training for all relevant school staff to successfully implement their role(s) within the MTSS-R system including the provision of universal instruction, targeted supports, and screening and progress monitoring (training) and (3) coaching to ensure that the MTSS-R system is implemented with fidelity (on-going support). The RFP states (page 43) that ED assumes that each elementary school will include 3 reading teachers (and 60 students) at each grade level.

The RFP states (page 93) that the Department expects that the training might include 1 day of support during readiness activities, 3 to 5 days of summer training, and 3 to 4 site visits as part of on-going support, in addition to technical support and other interactions (e.g. webinars), each year.

Additional clarification: Offerors should budget for 1 day of readiness training for 4 school staff and 5 days of summer training for 9 school staff (to include 6 teachers and up to 3 support staff), each year for 2 years. Offerors should not budget for staff time in site visits because they will occur during the school day. Please note that the site visits (on-going support) will comprise the extent of in-person coaching conducted by the provider. Any additional in-person support to teachers and school staff will be provided by other school staff, within the school day, and will not be funded by the study.

• Can you confirm that the budget for Tasks 29 and 31 includes the analysis of data from both implementation year 1 and implementation year 2, and a restricted use file that covers both school years?

Response: That is correct. Task 29 includes analyses of data from implementation years 1 and 2 to evaluate one MTSS-R strategy and the development of a restricted use file that includes those data. Task 31 include includes analyses of data from implementation years 1 and 2 to evaluate a second MTSS-R strategy and the development of a restricted use file that includes those data.

Past Performance

• Page 89 of the RFP instructions under Past Performance states “In addition, offerors may submit information about three contracts, completed/ongoing provided it started within 5 years of the Solicitation release date which are of similar content, methodology, complexity, scope, sample size, and data collection modes to this solicitation. The three contracts may include those entered into with the Federal Government, agencies of State and local governments, and commercial customers.”

a. Are subcontracts held by the prime bidder allowed to be presented in this section?

b. Are prime contracts held by proposed partners allowed to be presented in this section?

Response: Offers may submit information about three contracts total. These contracts may be projects in which the proposed prime contractor served as a prime or subcontractor. They may also include projects in which a proposed subcontractor served as a prime or subcontractor. The description at the top of the past performance form must clearly indicate the role the proposed prime or subcontractor played in the included contract in which past performance is provided.

Evaluation Factors

• Page 95, Section M of the RFP lists the instructions from Section L rather than the Evaluation factors. Please provide the evaluation factors for Section M.

Response: The Evaluation Factors for Award are included in the revised RFP, beginning on page 96, posted on FedBizOpps.com on July 2nd.

Rights in Data

• Page 24, Section I.44, I.45, Contract Clauses - The RFP specifies two Rights in Data FAR clauses, where typically only one is included. Can the Government please clarify which contract deliverables does the Rights in Data General clause apply, and those deliverables that apply to the Rights in Data Special Works?

Response: The Rights in Data – Special Works (DEC 2007) clause applies to all contract deliverables.

Student Testing

• Page 46, Section J.2 Att. A, Performance Work Statement - Will the chosen reading test used for Student testing data in grades 1 and 2 need to be available in both English and Spanish?

Response: The contractor shall identify a reading test that is valid and reliable for the purposes of the evaluation. The contractor should identify a reading test that is aligned with the proposed technical approach.

File Type and Formatting

• The instructions state that “An official authorized to bind your organization must sign the proposal. Offerors must submit the technical proposal electronically in WORD and PDF format.

Offerors must also submit the narrative portion of the cost proposal (description of costs) electronically in WORD and PDF. The offeror must also electronically submit an EXCEL WORKBOOK version of the full cost proposal. In addition, offerors must submit 3 hard copies of the technical proposal and 1 hard copy of the business proposal. The hard copy proposals should be bound and double-sided.”

Question: We are submitting the business volume in PDF and EXCEL WORKBOOK electronically but respectfully request that requirement to also submit a WORD version of the business volume electronically be eliminated.

Response: ED is requiring that offerors submit an Excel version of the full cost proposal.

ED is also requiring that offerors provide any narrative associated with the cost proposal in Word and PDF and that this narrative clearly reference the supporting tables in the full Excel cost proposal.

• Page 86, Section L.11, Instructions to Offerors - Do formatting requirements (12 point font, double-spaced) apply to key project staff resumes?

Response: It is necessary for the resume font to be 12 point. However, staff resumes may be single-spaced.

• Page 88, Section L.11, Instructions to Offerors - Can the proposed timeline be included in an appendix?

Response: The instructions state that the offeror shall present a proposed timeline that includes start and end dates for each project task and activity within the Proposed Personnel section. The timeline must be included in the body of the proposal, not in the appendix.

Study Timeline

• Exhibit 1: Base period is listed as Sept 2018 to June 2020 which is 22 months, but the duration and contract months indicate that the base period is supposed to be 34 months.

What is the correct timeframe for the base period?

• Optional Task I is listed as June 2019 to June 2020 which is 13 months, but the duration and contract months indicate it should be 25 months. What is the correct timeframe?

• Optional Task II indicates that it has a 10 month overlap with the Base/Optional Task I.

However, it begins after the Base/Optional Task I period ends, according to the timeframes included. Optional Task II begins in Sept 2020, and the preceding tasks end June 2020, prior to that. Can ED clarify the timeframe to be used?

• Due to the gap between the Base/Optional Task I and Optional Task II, there are only 70 contract months, rather than 72 contract months. Should we assume a 70 month contract or a 72 month contract?

Response: The end-date of the Base Period and Optional Task Period I has been corrected to June 2021 (from June 2020). This correction remedies the concerns, above, about timeframes, overlaps, and contract length.